Techniques for traversing representations of source code

ABSTRACT

Methods, apparatus, and systems for traversing a representation of an application source code, such as an abstract syntax tree (AST), are disclosed. Steps for traversing the AST include specifying a plurality of runtime binding rules which are associated with one or more locations within the AST, beginning to traverse the AST, monitoring a history of the traverse, continuing to traverse the AST based on the history of the traverse, and updating the history of the traverse. Continuing to traverse the AST may include identifying a plurality of concrete implementations of a method invocation and traversing less than all of the concrete implementations based at least in part on the runtime binding rules, the concrete implementations being traversed being selected based on the history of the traverse.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.13/830,510, entitled “TECHNIQUES FOR TRAVERSING REPRESENTATIONS OFSOURCE CODE”, filed on Mar. 14, 2013, which is hereby expresslyincorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

Embodiments of the present invention relate to software testing and inparticular static code analysis.

In static code analysis, a software application is tested withoutactually executing the application. The software application istypically tested by processing and analyzing the source code of theapplication prior to compiling the code. The entire source code of theapplication, or only portions of the source code, may be analyzed. Thesource code may be analyzed for one or more of a variety of purposes,such as for identifying possible coding errors, determining properties(e.g., operational behaviors) of the software application, etc.

As software applications become larger and more complex, performingaccurate, timely, and efficient static code analysis is becomingincreasingly difficult. Typical static code analyzers traverse thesource code of an application and, as they traverse, they run intocontrol flows where a plurality of paths may be taken. To ensure aholistic test, the static code analyzers traverse all possible paths.While traversing all possible paths may ensure that every possibleexecution path is tested, it also results in significant inefficienciesas paths that could not actually be followed during runtime (i.e.,impossible execution paths) are also tested. Further, various otherproblems also arise when performing static code analysis on source codethat makes use of modern programming paradigms such as object orientedprogramming, inversion of control, dependency injection, and aspectoriented programming.

BRIEF SUMMARY

Embodiments of the present invention may address one of more of thesedeficiencies. In one embodiment, a method of traversing a representationof an application source code is disclosed. The method comprisesbeginning to traverse, using one or more computer processors, therepresentation of the application source code, monitoring a history ofthe traverse, and continuing to traverse the representation of theapplication source code based on the history of the traverse. Continuingto traverse the representation of the application source code mayinclude identifying a plurality of concrete implementations of a methodinvocation and traversing less than all of the concrete implementations,the concrete implementations being traversed being selected based on thehistory of the traverse.

In at least one embodiment, the method further comprises selecting oneof a plurality of entry points to the application source code, whereinbeginning to traverse the representation of the application source codeincludes beginning at the selected entry point.

In some embodiments, monitoring a history of the traverse includesstoring metadata associated with visited concrete implementations ofmethod invocations. The metadata may include a reference to the classdeclarations enclosing the visited concrete implementations.

In at least one embodiment, the method further comprises determiningwhether a method invocation or its corresponding concrete implementationis marked with a runtime binding rule. When it is determined that themethod invocation or its corresponding concrete implementation is markedwith a runtime binding rule, a method declaration identified by theruntime binding rule is jumped to.

In other embodiments, a computer system is disclosed. The computersystem comprises a storage element operable to store a representation ofan application source code, and a processor operable to performoperations. The operations may include: beginning to traverse therepresentation of the application source code, monitoring a history ofthe traverse, and continuing to traverse the representation of theapplication source code based on the history of the traverse. Continuingto traverse the representation of the application source code mayinclude identifying a plurality of concrete implementations of a methodinvocation and traversing less than all of the concrete implementations,the concrete implementations being traversed being selected based on thehistory of the traverse.

In yet other embodiments, a tangible non-transitory computer readablestorage medium is disclosed. The storage medium has code stored thereonthat, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to performvarious operations. The operations may include: beginning to traversethe representation of the application source code, monitoring a historyof the traverse, and continuing to traverse the representation of theapplication source code based on the history of the traverse. Continuingto traverse the representation of the application source code mayinclude identifying a plurality of concrete implementations of a methodinvocation and traversing less than all of the concrete implementations,the concrete implementations being traversed being selected based on thehistory of the traverse.

Additional embodiments and features are set forth within the descriptionthat follows, and in part will become apparent to those skilled in theart upon examination of the specification, or may be learned by thepractice of the disclosed embodiments. The features and advantages ofthe disclosed technology may be realized and attained by means of theinstrumentalities, combinations, and methods described in thespecification.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a computer system according toembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 2 illustrates various computing engines that may be used to performstatic code analysis according to embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing a method of performing static codeanalysis according to embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing operations for traversing a representationof source code as depicted in FIG. 3 according to a first embodiment ofthe present invention.

FIG. 5A depicts a flowchart showing operations for traversing arepresentation of source code as depicted in FIG. 3 according to asecond embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 5B depicts a flowchart showing operations for determining whichconcrete implementation to visit according to an embodiment of thepresent invention.

FIG. 6A is an example code snippet of a web front end containing anentry point.

FIG. 6B is an example code snippet of an abstract class providingconvenience methods.

FIG. 6C is an example code snippet of a bank service for databasepersistence.

FIG. 6D is an example code snippet of a bank service for web servicepersistence.

FIG. 6E is an example code snippet of an abstract class with httpconvenience methods.

FIG. 6F is an example code snippet of an interface for bank serviceimplementations.

FIG. 7A is an example code snippet of a first J2EE filter to be invokedin a filter chain.

FIG. 7B is an example code snippet of a second J2EE filter to be invokedin a filter chain.

FIG. 8 is a diagram of a computer apparatus according to someembodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Embodiments of the present invention include apparatus, methods andsystems for more efficiently and correctly traversing the static callgraph of application source code. Some of the techniques describedherein provide a static code analysis (SCA) engine that is moreefficient and correct as it compensates for various modern applicationprogramming paradigms, including but not limited to: object orientedprogramming, inversion of control, dependency injection, and aspectoriented programming. Methods executed by the SCA engine may bedescribed as “Runtime Simulation” as they may provide the ability toaccurately model and traverse the call graph of an application as if theapplication were actually running.

The SCA engine begins analysis by identifying all of the entry pointsinto the application. Entry points are those locations where executionof the source code begins from the perspective of the target codebase.For example, the “public static void main(java.lang.String[ ] args)”method would be considered an entry point for a Java code base. The SCAengine begins by leveraging the visitor pattern to traverse the methodbody of the current (i.e., entry point) method, collecting variousmetadata useful for security analysis (such as the fully qualified classname of the class that contains the method declaration that the engineis jumping to, a reference to the method invocation, etc.). Once the SCAengine hits a call-site (e.g., a method invocation), the SCA engine will“jump” to one or more concrete method declaration implementations of theassociated method invocation (i.e., begin traversing the method body ofthe one or more concrete method declaration implementations). The SCAengine determines which potential concrete implementations to visitbased on various metadata collected from previous visits. Such metadataallows the SCA engine to understand a) the current data type and b) thelocation in the inheritance stack of the current data type. Based onthis information, the SCA engine can reduce the number of concreteimplementations to visit and jump to only those declarations that couldpossibly be traversed if the application were actually running. Thisstrategy may advantageously compensate for challenges associated withobject-oriented programming and dependency injection. The same processmay be applied to traverse the source code at each identified entrypoint.

The SCA engine may also include support for dealing with inversion ofcontrol through the use of code slicing. Rules captured in a separatefile (e.g., XML markup, Java source code, etc.) or “Rule Pack” describeto the SCA engine how to properly perform code slicing for anapplication codebase. These rules may be referred to as “Runtime BindingRules” (“RBR”). When the SCA engine is traversing a call graph and itencounters a matching runtime binding rule, the engine will augment thecall graph traversal using code slicing techniques in accordance withthe rule. Code slicing as implemented using Runtime Binding Rules allowsthe engine to simulate the inversion of control behavior that isactually carried out by the library and/or framework at runtime.

Runtime binding rules can be applied to both method invocations andmethod declarations in one or more of a variety of different situations.Prior to visiting any concrete implementations associated with a methodinvocation, the SCA engine may check to see if the method invocation ismarked with a runtime binding rule. If so, the SCA engine will jump tothose concrete implementations referenced by the rule instead of thoseconcrete implementations that the SCA engine would otherwise visit.

Just before visiting a method body (i.e. concrete implementation), theengine may check to see if the method is marked with a “before” runtimebinding rule. If so, the engine will jump to those concreteimplementations referenced by the rule before visiting the currentmethod's body (i.e. a method body can be marked indicating that one ormore other method bodies must be traversed before visitation).

Just after visiting a method body (i.e. concrete implementation), theengine will check to see if the method body is marked with an “After”runtime binding rule. If so, the engine will jump to those concreteimplementations referenced by the rule after already having visited thecurrent method's body (i.e. a method body can be marked indicating thatone or more other method bodies must be traversed after visitation).

Turning now to the figures, FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating acomputer system 100 according to embodiments of the present invention.Computer system 100 may be any suitable electronic computing device,such as a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a network server, a notepad, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a handheld orportable device (iPhone™, Blackberry™, etc.), or other electronicdevice. Computer system 100 may be associated with a user having adesire to perform static code analysis on source code stored at thecomputer system 100 or remote from computer system 100.

Computer system 100 may include any suitable components typically foundin such a system necessary to perform the operations discussed herein.In one embodiment and as illustrated in FIG. 1, computer system 100includes an input device 110, an output device 120, and a case 130, allcoupled to one another.

The input device 110 may be any device suitable for receiving input fromthe user. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 1, the input device 110 isa keyboard. However, in other embodiments, the input device 110 mayinclude a mouse, a pointer, a touch-screen, a microphone, or otherdevice suitable to receive information from a user.

The output device 120 may be any device suitable for providinginformation to the user. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 1, theoutput device 120 is an electronic display (e.g., a liquid crystaldisplay, a light emitting diode display, etc.). However, in otherembodiments, the output device 120 may include a speaker or other devicesuitable for providing information to the user. In at least oneembodiment, the input device 110 and the output device 120 may beintegrated with one another.

The case 130 may be any suitable case for containing one or moreadditional elements of computer system 100, such as one or moreprocessors 132, one or more storage elements 134, etc. The processor 132may be any suitable computer processor operable to execute instructionsstored on a medium (e.g., code representing the SCA engine), and storageelement 134 may be any suitable tangible non-transitory computerreadable storage medium. The storage element 134 may be operable tostore application source code to be tested, representations of thesource code under test, an application representing the SCA engine, etc.The storage element 134 may include, for example, one or more of randomaccess memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), electrically-erasableprogrammable read only memory (EEPROM), a hard disk, an optical disk,etc. The processor 132 may be operable to execute the applicationrepresenting the SCA engine so as to test the source code under test.

In some embodiments, the application source code may be stored remotelyfrom the computer system 100. In such cases, the application sourcecode, in whole or in part, may be retrieved by the computer system 100and tested by the computer system 100. For example, the computing system100 may also include a communication interface (not shown) to facilitatewired or wireless communication with one or more other electronicdevices, and may use the communication interface to acquire the sourcecode and, in some embodiments, communicate test results.

Computer system 100 in certain embodiments is a computing environmentfor performing static code analysis using a number of components asdepicted in FIG. 1. However, it will be appreciated by those of ordinaryskill in the art that static code analysis as described herein could beperformed equally well in other computing environments includingcomputer systems having fewer or a greater number of components than areillustrated in FIG. 1. Thus, the depiction of computer system 100 inFIG. 1 should be taken as being illustrative in nature, and not limitingto the scope of the disclosure.

FIG. 2 illustrates various computing engines that may be used to performstatic code analysis according to embodiments of the present invention.The various engines may comprise code operable to perform variousfunctions when executed by a processor, or may comprise hardwareoperable to perform various functions when activated. For example, thevarious engines may comprise code stored on storage element 134 (FIG. 1)that is operable to cause computer system 100 to perform variousoperations when executed by processor 132. In some embodiments, thevarious engines depicted herein may correspond to the previouslydescribed SCA engine.

A translation engine 210 is coupled to a source code depository 212. Thesource code depository 212 may store source code of an application undertest, where the source code may represent all or only a portion of theapplication under test. For example, the source code depository 212could be located in storage element 134 (FIG. 1). The translation enginemay read the source code from source code depository 212 and generate arepresentation of the source code. For example, the translation enginemay generate a representation of the abstract syntactic structure of thesource code. In at least one embodiment, the translation engine maygenerate an abstract syntax tree (AST) of the source code.

An analysis engine 220 is coupled to the translation engine 210 and isoperable to receive the representation of the source code from thetranslation engine 210. The analysis engine is operable to performstatic code analysis on the representation of the source code. Theanalysis engine 220 may include one or more of a variety of components,such as an entry point identifier 221, a traverser 222 coupled to a rulepack 223, a metadata collector 224 coupled to a stack 225, and avulnerability detector 226.

The entry point identifier 221 may be operable to identify the entrypoints of the source code and, in some embodiments, select one or moreof those entry points for subsequent traversing. The traverser 222 maybe operable to traverse the representation of the source code asdescribed herein. In traversing the representation of the source code,the traverser 222 may use one or more rules included in one or more rulepacks 223. Further, the traverser 222 may use metadata provided frommetadata collector 224 and, for example, stored in stack 225. In someembodiments, the traverser 222 may traverse the representation of thesource code by independently beginning its traversal at each identifiedentry point.

Metadata collector 224 may be operable to collect metadata while thetraverser 222 traverses the representation of the source code. Metadatacollector 224 may collect information such as class names, fullyqualified class names, references to method invocations, etc. Themetadata collector 224 may also be operable to push and pull metadata tothe stack 225. The metadata may be pushed and pulled from the stack 225at suitable times determined by the traverser 222 and further describedherein.

The vulnerability detector 226 may be operable to detect or otherwiseidentify vulnerabilities in the source code. Vulnerabilities may includebugs, security breaches, violations of programming conventions, etc. Thevulnerability detector 226 may detect vulnerabilities while thetraverser 222 traverses the representation of the source code as furtherdescribed herein.

Output engine 230 may be operable to generate and output information tothe user. The output engine 230 may be coupled to the analysis engine220 to receive results from components of the analysis engine 220 suchas the entry point identifier 221, traverser 222, metadata collector224, and vulnerability detector 226. For example, output engine 230 mayreceive indications of vulnerabilities detected by vulnerabilitydetector 226 and output those indications to the user.

The engines depicted in FIG. 2 are operable to perform static codeanalysis according to certain embodiments. However, it will beappreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that static codeanalysis as described herein could be performed equally well using feweror a greater number of computing engines than are illustrated in FIG. 2.Thus, the depiction of computing engines in FIG. 2 should be taken asbeing illustrative in nature, and not limiting to the scope of thedisclosure.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing a method 300 of performing static codeanalysis according to embodiments of the present invention. The method300 may be executed by any suitable computing system, such as computingsystem 100 (FIG. 1), and/or one or more computational engines includingthose described with reference to FIG. 2.

In operation 310, the source code is obtained. The entire source code oronly portions of the source code of an application to be tested may beacquired. For example, computing system 100 may receive the source codefrom another electronic device via wired or wireless communications. Foranother example, the source code may be generated at computing system100. The source code may be stored at computing system 100, e.g., bystorage element 134, and/or by source code repository 212 (FIG. 2).

In operation 320, a representation of the structure of the source codeis generated. For example, translation engine 210 (FIG. 2) may generatean AST of the source code, where the AST includes various nodes to betraversed.

In operation 330, the representation of the structure of the source codeis traversed to identify potential vulnerabilities. For example, thenodes of the AST may be traversed using traverser 222 (FIG. 2). The ASTmay be traversed efficiently so as to avoid or reduce the number ofcontrol paths traversed which may not be actually followed duringruntime. The AST may also be traversed by starting at one or moreidentified entry points. While the AST is traversed, potentialvulnerabilities may be detected. For example, vulnerability detector 226(FIG. 2) may identify bugs, security breaches, violations of programmingconventions, etc. Once the AST is traversed from one entry point, theAST may then be traversed starting from other entry points, until allentry points have been used to traverse the AST, where the traversal ateach entry point is performed from a new/fresh/clean state.

In operation 340, any identified potential vulnerabilities may beoutput. For example, output engine 230 (FIG. 2) may display theidentified potential vulnerabilities to a user, store the identifiedvulnerabilities in a file for communication to the user, etc.

It should be appreciated that the specific operations illustrated inFIG. 3 provide a particular method of performing static code analysisaccording to certain embodiments of the present invention. Othersequences of operations may also be performed according to alternativeembodiments. For example, alternative embodiments of the presentinvention may perform the operations outlined above in a differentorder. Moreover, the individual operations illustrated in FIG. 3 mayinclude multiple sub-operations that may be performed in varioussequences as appropriate to the individual operations. Furthermore,additional operations may be added or existing operations removeddepending on the particular applications. One of ordinary skill in theart would recognize and appreciate many variations, modifications, andalternatives.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing operations for traversing a representationof source code 330 depicted in FIG. 3 according to a first embodiment ofthe present invention. The operations may be executed by any suitablecomputing system, such as computing system 100 (FIG. 1), and/or one ormore computational engines including those described with reference toFIG. 2.

In operation 402, an entry point is selected. For example, the entrypoint identifier 221 (FIG. 2) may identify some or all of the entrypoints of the source code. One of the entry points may then be selected,and traversal of the representation of the source code may begin at theselected entry point. In at least one embodiment, each of the entrypoints may be selected in sequence, and the representation of the sourcecode may be traversed beginning at each of the entry points. Further,the processes described herein may be uniquely applied to each entrypoint, so that, for example, states generated during the traversal fromone entry point do not impact states generated during the traversal fromanother entry point.

In operation 404, traversal of the representation of source code begins.For example, traverser 222 (FIG. 2) may begin traversing therepresentation of source code generated by translation engine 210 at oneof the identified entry points. In at least one embodiment, therepresentation of source code may be traversed using a visitor pattern.

In operation 406, the traversal history is monitored. For example, thehistory of the traverser 222 traversing the representation of sourcecode may be monitored and stored. This may include storing metadataassociated with visited concrete implementations of method invocations.For example, metadata collector 224 (FIG. 2) may collect and storemetadata in stack 225 so to form a history of the traverse. Metadata mayinclude the class name of the class that includes the visited concreteimplementations of method invocations, or other suitable information foridentifying a scanning path.

In operation 408, the traversal of the source code is continued based onthe history of the traverse. For example, while traversing a methodbody, traverser 222 may run into a method invocation and identify aplurality of concrete implementations of the method invocation. Insteadof traversing all concrete implementations, the traverser 222 may usemetadata collected in stack 225 to select and traverse less than all ofthe concrete implementations. In one embodiment, the traverser 222selects and traverses only one of the identified concreteimplementations.

In operation 410, it is determined whether a vulnerability in the sourcecode is identified. For example, vulnerability detector 226 may identifya vulnerability in the source code. If a vulnerability is detected,processing may continue with operation 412 where an indication of thevulnerability is stored. If a vulnerability is not detected, thenprocessing may continue to operation 414 where it may be determinedwhether traversal of the representation of source code is finished. Forexample, the traverser 222 may determine whether it has finishedtraversing the representation of source code. If traversing is finished,then processing may continue to operation 340 (FIG. 3), where the storedindications of potential vulnerabilities are output to the user.Otherwise, processing may return to operation 406.

It should be appreciated that the specific operations illustrated inFIG. 4 provide a particular method of traversing a representation ofsource code according to certain embodiments of the present invention.Other sequences of operations may also be performed according toalternative embodiments. For example, alternative embodiments of thepresent invention may perform the operations outlined above in adifferent order. Moreover, the individual operations illustrated in FIG.4 may include multiple sub-operations that may be performed in varioussequences as appropriate to the individual operations. Furthermore,additional operations may be added or existing operations removeddepending on the particular applications. One of ordinary skill in theart would recognize and appreciate many variations, modifications, andalternatives.

FIG. 5A depicts a flowchart showing operations for traversing arepresentation of source code (e.g., source code 330 depicted in FIG. 3)according to a second embodiment of the present invention. Theoperations may be executed by any suitable computing system, such ascomputing system 100 (FIG. 1), and/or one or more computational enginesincluding such as those described with reference to FIG. 2.

In operation 502, an entry point is selected similar to operation 402(FIG. 4), thus further description is omitted. Once an entry point to amethod body is identified, processing may then continue to operation 503where metadata associated with the method body is stored (e.g., pushedto stack 225). In one particular embodiment, metadata collector 224 maypush the acquired metadata to the stack 225 so to form a history of thetraverse. For example, the metadata collector 224 may push a referenceto the class declaration including the class name encompassing themethod body to the stack 225. Once such metadata is pushed to the stack,processing may continue to operation 504. In operation 504, thetraverser 222 begins traversing the method body. As traversal at thispoint began immediately after selecting an entry point, the traverser222 begins traversing the original method body (i.e., the method bodyidentified by the entry point).

While traversing the method body, the source code is analyzed forpotential vulnerabilities. Thus in operation 506 the vulnerabilitydetector 226 determines whether any potential vulnerabilities areidentified. If so, then processing continues to operation 508 where anindication of the potential vulnerability is stored. For example,information identifying the type of potential vulnerability, where thepotential vulnerability is, how to access the potential vulnerability, aseverity of the potential vulnerability, etc. may be stored in storageelement 134. Once such information is stored, or in the event thevulnerability detector 226 does not identify any potentialvulnerabilities, processing may continue to operation 510.

In operation 510, it is determined whether a method invocation isidentified in the method body. For example, the traverser 222 maysequentially scan through the source code (or the representation of thesource code) searching for method invocations in the source code. Uponidentifying a method invocation in the method body, processing maycontinue to operation 512.

In operation 512, it is determined which concrete implementation tovisit. For example, the traverser 222 may determine which concreteimplementations of the method invocation identified in operation 510should be subsequently traversed. In some cases, there may be only oneconcrete implementation of the method invocation (i.e., only one methoddeclaration), and thus such concrete implementation may be determined.In other cases there may be more than one concrete implementation of themethod invocation. In such cases one, some, or all of the concreteimplementations may be determined. Such concrete implementation(s) aredetermined or otherwise identified for subsequent traversing. Whenmultiple concrete implementations are determined, they may each besubsequently traversed. For example, while the first concreteimplementation is traversed, the remaining concrete implementations maybe queued for subsequent traversal. One specific embodiment fordetermining which concrete implementation(s) to visit is described withreference to FIG. 5B.

Once a concrete implementation is identified, processing may continue tooperation 514. In operation 514 it is determined whether the methodassociated with the concrete implementation determined in operation 512is marked with a “before” runtime binding rule. For example, thetraverser 222 may access one or more runtime binding rules included inthe rule pack 223 and determine whether any of the runtime binding rulesapply to the concrete implementation determined in operation 512. If so,then one or more concrete implementations referenced by the runtimebinding rule may be traversed first. Otherwise, the traverser 222 mayjump straight to the concrete implementation identified in operation512.

In at least one embodiment, the analysis engine may maintain a globallookup table that associates properties (e.g., associations with runtimebinding rules) to objects (e.g., method implementations). When theanalysis engine reads in the rule pack and has the representation of thesource code, before it traverses the representation, it may apply therule pack to the representation of the source code, using the results topopulate the global lookup table.

Accordingly, if it is determined that the method associated with theconcrete implementation determined in operation 512 is marked with a“before” runtime binding rule, then processing may continue to operation516. In operation 516 the concrete implementation(s) determined inoperation 512 may be tagged for future traversal. Such concreteimplementation(s) may thus be traversed by, e.g., traverser 222 onlyafter the concrete implementation identified by the “before” runtimebinding rule are traversed.

After operation 516, processing may continue to operation 518 where theconcrete implementation identified by the “before” runtime binding ruleis jumped to. For example, the traverser 222 may jump to the concreteimplementation referenced by the “before” runtime binding rule forsubsequent traversal. In cases where the “before” runtime binding rulereferences a number of different concrete implementations, they may eachbe subsequently traversed. For example, while the first concreteimplementation is traversed, the remaining concrete implementations maybe queued for subsequent traversal.

Processing may then continue to operation 520 where the class(es) arepushed to a stack. For example, after jumping to the concreteimplementation identified by the “before” runtime binding rule, themetadata collector 224 may acquire metadata of the identified concreteimplementation (e.g., the class name of the concrete implementation). Inone particular embodiment, metadata collector 224 may push the acquiredmetadata to the stack 225 so to form a history of the traverse. Thestack may be time-ordered such that more recently pushed information maytake priority over less recently pushed information. The most recentlypushed information may also be popped off of the stack before the lessrecently pushed information. Once such metadata is pushed to the stack,processing may continue to operation 504 where the traverser 222 beginsto traverse the new method body (i.e., the method body identified by the“before” runtime binding rule). The various operations described for theoriginal method body may then be repeated for the new method body.

Returning to operation 514, if it is determined that the methodassociated with the concrete implementation determined in operation 512is not marked with a “before” runtime binding rule, then processing maycontinue to operation 522. In operation 522 the traverser 222 may jumpto the concrete implementation identified in operation 512. The metadataassociated with the concrete implementation identified in operation 512may then, in operation 520, be pushed to the stack 225. Once suchmetadata is pushed to the stack, processing may continue to operation504 where the traverser 222 begins to traverse the new method body(i.e., the method body identified in operation 512). The variousoperations described for the original method body may then be repeatedfor the new method body.

Returning to operation 510, it may be determined that no further methodinvocations are identified in the method body. In such a case,processing may continue to operation 524. In operation 524 it isdetermined whether the current method body has been fully traversed. Forexample, the traverser 222 may determine whether there is any of theoriginal or new method body that has not yet been traversed. If thecurrent method body has not been fully traversed, then processing mayreturn to operation 510 to determine whether there are any furthermethod invocations in the current method body that need to beidentified. Otherwise, processing may continue to operation 526.

In operation 526 it is determined whether the method body which was justfinished being traversed is the original method body. If so, then thetraverser 222 may be finished traversing the representation of thestructure of the source code. Processing may then continue to operation527 where the class name or other metadata for the original method bodyis popped off of the stack. If not, then this indicates that thetraverser 222 finished traversing a ‘new’ method body and needs toreturn to the original method body to complete traversing of theoriginal method body. Accordingly, processing may continue to operation528.

In operation 528, a class name (or other metadata) is popped from orotherwise removed from the stack (or from the history of the traverse).As previously described the stack may be time-ordered such that morerecently pushed information may take priority over less recently pushedinformation. The most recently pushed information may then be popped offof the stack before the less recently pushed information. In thisparticular example, it is the metadata associated with the method bodywhich the traverser 222 just finished traversing that will be popped offof the stack. Processing may then continue to operation 530.

In operation 530 it may be determined whether the method is marked withan “after” runtime binding rule. For example, as described withreference to operation 514, the traverser 222 may access one or moreruntime binding rules included in the rule pack 223 and determinewhether any of the runtime binding rules apply to the concreteimplementation which the traverser 222 just finished traversing. If so,then the traverser 222 may traverse the one or more concreteimplementations referenced by the runtime binding rule prior toreturning to the method invocation associated with the concreteimplementation that the traverser 222 just finished traversing. That is,processing may continue to operation 532 where the traverser 222 jumpsto operation 518, this time jumping to the concrete implementation(s)identified by the “after” runtime binding rules.

After any concrete implementation(s) identified by the “after” runtimebinding rules have been traversed, or the method that was traversed inoperation 530 is not marked with an “after” runtime binding rule, thenprocessing may continue to operation 534. In operation 534 the traverser222 returns to a point in the source code immediately after the methodinvocation associated with the concrete implementation that was justtraversed. Processing may then return to operation 510 where thetraverser 222 determines whether there are any further methodinvocations to be identified.

For example, during traversal of a first (“original”) method body, thename of the class including the original method body may be pushed tothe stack in operation 503 as the analysis engine beings traversing theoriginal method body. As the analysis engine traverses the originalmethod body, the analysis engine may identify a method invocation inoperation 510. The method invocation may be associated with a particularconcrete implementation that is determined in operation 512. Theanalysis engine may then jump to that concrete implementation inoperation 522 and push the name of the class including the method bodyof the jumped-to concrete implementation to the stack as the analysisengine begins to traverse this “new” method body. The class name at thetop of the stack is thus indicative of the name of the class for themethod body currently being traversed.

As the analysis engine then traverses the “new” method body, it may notidentify any method invocations in the new method body. Processing wouldthus continue to operation 524 where it determines that it finishedtraversing the method body, but the method body was not the “original”method body. Thus, processing would continue to operation 528 where theclass name of the class including the method body that just finishedbeing traversed is popped off of the stack. After that, processing maythen continue to operation 534 where the analysis engine returns to apoint in the original method body immediately after the methodinvocation that caused the analysis engine to traverse the “new” methodbody. The analysis engine may then continue traversing the originalmethod body looking for additional method invocations. If none arefound, then processing may continue to operation 526 where the analysisengine determines that is finished traversing the original method body,after which the class name of the original method body may be popped offof the stack in operation 527.

Turning now to FIG. 5B, a particular process for performing operation512 in accordance with an embodiment is described. That is, a particularprocess for determining which concrete implementation to traverse isdescribed. In operation 512A, it is determined whether the methodinvocation is marked with a runtime binding rule. For example, similarto the use of “before” and “after” runtime binding rules, the traverser222 may determine whether the method invocation (in contrast to themethod declarations for which runtime binding rules were previouslydescribed) is marked with a runtime binding rule. If so, then processingmay continue to operation 512B where the concrete implementationreferenced by the runtime binding rule is determined as the concreteimplementation to traverse. In cases where the runtime binding rulereferences a number of different concrete implementations, they may eachbe subsequently traversed. For example, while the first concreteimplementation is traversed, the remaining concrete implementations maybe queued for subsequent traversal.

If, on the other hand, it is determined in operation 512A that themethod invocation is not marked with a runtime binding rule, thenprocessing may continue to operation 512C. In operation 512C it isdetermined whether there is more than one concrete implementation of themethod invocation. In at least one embodiment, before beginning totraverse the representation of the source code, the analysis engine maycollect metadata regarding each node of the representation and assign itto each node. For example, a list of method declarations that correspondto a method invocation may be stored in a table. The table may then bereferenced during scanning of the representation of the source code todetermine whether there are any concrete implementations of the methodinvocation.

If there is not more than one concrete implementation, then processingcontinues to operation 512D, where the analysis engine uses the oneidentified concrete implementation as the concrete implementation totraverse. If, however, there is more than one concrete implementation,then processing continues to 512E.

In operation 512E, it is determined whether any classes in the stack arean instance of the class(es) associated with the concreteimplementations. If it is determined that none of the classes in thestack are an instance of the class(es) associated with the concreteimplementations, then processing may continue to operation 512F wherethe analysis engine uses all concrete implementations as those totraverse. In jumping to all concrete implementations, the analysisengine 220 may jump to and traverse each concrete implementationsequentially. Otherwise, if it is determined that at least one of theclasses in the stack are an instance of the class(es) associated withthe concrete implementations, then processing may continue to operation512G.

In operation 512G, the identified classes are searched for the concreteimplementation. For example, the analysis engine 222 may search theidentified classes in the stack for the concrete implementation of themethod invocation identified in operation 510. The analysis engine 222may search the identified classes in any suitable order. In oneparticular embodiment, the analysis engine 222 begins searching theidentified classes starting with the sub-most class on the stack; thatis, the earliest-pushed class on the stack, in contrast to themost-recently pushed class.

In operation 512H, it is determined whether a concrete implementation ofthe method invocation identified in operation 510 is found in theidentified classes. If no concrete implementation is found, thenprocessing continues to operation 512F, where the analysis engine 220uses all concrete implementations. Otherwise, processing continues tooperation 512I, where the analysis engine 220 jumps to the concreteimplementation in the identified class. In one particular embodiment,the concrete implementation used will be the most concrete (i.e., theearliest-pushed or sub-most class on the stack that includes theconcrete implementation).

It should be appreciated that the specific operations illustrated inFIGS. 5A and 5B provide a particular method of traversing arepresentation of source code according to certain embodiments of thepresent invention. Other sequences of operations may also be performedaccording to alternative embodiments. For example, alternativeembodiments of the present invention may perform the operations outlinedabove in a different order. Moreover, the individual operationsillustrated in FIGS. 5A and 5B may include multiple sub-operations thatmay be performed in various sequences as appropriate to the individualoperations. Furthermore, additional operations may be added or existingoperations removed depending on the particular applications. One ofordinary skill in the art would recognize and appreciate manyvariations, modifications, and alternatives.

Walkthrough #1: Inheritance and Dependency Injection

The following section provides specific examples illustrating how theengine may start scanning source code, collect metadata along the way(including inheritance stack), and decide what concrete methoddeclarations implementations to visit in the event the SCA engine hits,scans, or otherwise identifies a method invocation, according to variousembodiments. This provides insight into how the engine may deal withcomplications such as inheritance and dependency injection (largely onein the same from the perspective of the scanner). Source code referencedby the following sections is captured in external “.java” files. In anattempt to remain concise, the walkthrough focuses on a limited numberof method invocations to method declaration permutations in the sourcecode. However, one skilled in the art would recognize that embodimentsare not so limited, and that in at least one embodiment the engine mayapply the following logic to all method invocations that have one ormore corresponding method declarations.

Code References:

BankHttpServlet.java—web front end containing an entry point (FIG. 6A)

AbstractBankService.java—abstract class providing convenience methods(FIG. 6B)

DatabaseBankService.java—bank service for database persistence (FIG. 6C)

WebServiceBankService.java—bank service for web service persistence(FIG. 6D)

AbstractHttpBankService.java—abstract class with http conveniencemethods (FIG. 6E)

IBankService.java—interface for bank service implementations (FIG. 6F)

Step 1—Traverse Abstract Syntax Tree Starting at Entry Point(s)

The BankHttpServlet class (FIG. 6A) is responsible for responding toHTTP POST requests produced by clients such as browsers. Dependencyinjection (provided by a framework such as Spring) is leveraged todynamically instantiate the bankService field at runtime (line 4). TheSCA engine first translates this code into an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)and searches for all of the “entry points”. The above code contains oneentry point: the doPost method (line 6). The engine starts traversingthe AST node-by-node using the visitor pattern at this methoddeclaration, consistently traversing the child nodes. The moment theengine visits a class, it pushes the class declaration onto aninheritance stack. The inheritance stack is responsible for maintaininga set of all the current qualified class names that the engine iscurrently in the process of visiting. Eventually, the engine encountersthe method invocation bankService.transfer (line 11). At this point theengine must decide which concrete implementations (i.e., methoddeclarations) of the aforementioned method invocation to jump to andstart visiting.

At this point, the current inheritance stack includes:

1. BankHttpServlet

Step 2—Locate all Concrete Implementations of IBankService.Transfer

The engine identifies one concrete implementation to (i.e., methoddeclaration for) the IBankService.transfer method (FIG. 6F) utilized byBankHttpServlet (FIG. 6A). The engine finds this concrete implementationin AbstractBankService.java (FIG. 6B). The engine then jumps to themethod declaration at line 8 of AbstractBankService.java and beginsvisiting the method body. At this point the engine updates theinheritance stack to reflect the fact that it is now scanning a newclass.

At this point, the current inheritance stack includes:

1. AbstractBankService

2. BankHttpServlet

Step 3—Locate all Concrete Implementations of

AbstractBankService.performTransfer

Upon visiting the method body of AbstractBankService.transfer, theengine comes across the performTransfer(account, amount) methodinvocation (line 14). The engine will then locate all concreteimplementations of this method resulting in two options:DatabaseBankService.java (FIG. 6C)(line 5), and WebServiceBankService(FIG. 6D)(line 7). At this point, the engine attempts to reduce thenumber of method declarations that are visited by inspecting the currentinheritance stack. The engine inspects the stack to determine if thereare any classes on the stack that are an instance of the classesassociated with the target method declarations (i.e.,DatabaseBankService and WebServiceBankService). The engine determinesthat there is a class on the stack (i.e., AbstractBankService) that, inthis example, is an instance of the class associated with not one butboth target method declarations. Once the engine collects all theclasses that are an instance of the classes associated with the targetmethod declarations, the engine looks for a method declaration thatsatisfies the method invocation (e.g., a method declaration thatdeclares the AbstractBankService.performTransfer method and accepts twoparameters) starting with the sub-most class. In this case, the enginedetermines that the AbstractBankService does not offer a concrete methoddeclaration for the performTransfer method. As a result, the enginecannot rule out either target method declaration and thus visits both.For the sake of brevity, the remainder of this discussion will befocused on the traversal of the performTransfer method declaration inthe WebServiceBankService class (line 7).

At this point, the current inheritance stack includes:

-   -   1. WebServiceBankService    -   2. AbstractBankService    -   3. BankHttpServlet

Step 4—Traverse WebServiceBankService.performTransfer

The engine begins to visit the method body ofWebServiceBankService.performTransfer (FIG. 6)(line 7) and immediatelyhits the method invocation startConnection. This method invocationhappens to have a concrete method declaration inherited by the superclass AbstractHttpBankService (FIG. 6E)(line 9). Even though there is aconcrete implementation of this method associated with the currentclass, the engine first inspects the inheritance stack for potential“override” candidates (those methods that may override startConnectionand happen to be an instance of WebServiceBankService). Note that thereis no class on the current inheritance stack that meets these criteria.At this point, the engine can safely visit the method declarationAbstractHttpBankService.startConnection. As usual, the engine updatesthe current inheritance stack accordingly.

At this point, the current inheritance stack includes:

-   -   1. AbstractHttpBankService    -   2. WebServiceBankService    -   3. AbstractBankService    -   4. BankHttpServlet

Step 5—Traverse AbstractHttpBankService.startConnection

The engine begins to visit the method body ofAbstractHttpBankService.startConnection (FIG. 6E)(line 9) and eventuallycomes to the method invocation createAuthenticationHeaders. This methodinvocation happens to have a concrete method declaration in the sameclass (AbstractHttpBankService.createAuthenticationHeaders)(FIG.6E)(line 5). Before the engine visits this method declaration, theengine first checks the current inheritance stack to determine if thereare any more correct candidates. Looking at the inheritance stack, theengine determines that there are two classes that are an instance of(e.g., are equal to or extend; i.e., class A is an instance of class Bif they have the same qualifying class name or if class A is the parentof class B) AbstractHttpBankService: AbstractHttpBankService andWebServiceBankService. Starting with the sub-most class(WebServiceBankService), the engine begins looking for any method thatmay override the createAuthenticationHeaders signature (e.g., overridethe createAuthenticationHeaders name and parameters).WebServiceBankService does in fact contain a method declaration matchingthe createAuthenticationHeaders. At this point the engine can safelyrule out the implementation of this method in AbstractHttpBankServiceand instead only visit the implementation in WebServiceBankService. Thisillustrates the engines ability to: 1) reduce potential paths in code byinspecting the current inheritance stack that is very accurate giventhat the engine started at the application ‘entry point’, and 2) dealwith object inheritance by properly jumping from sub classes to superclasses and back. The inheritance stack is updated and the same logic isrepeated:

At this point, the current inheritance stack includes:

-   -   1. WebServiceBankService    -   2. AbstractHttpBankService    -   3. WebServiceBankService    -   4. AbstractBankService    -   5. BankHttpServlet        Walkthrough #2: Inversion of Control

The following is an example illustrating how the SCA engine maycompensate for inversion of control in applications through the use ofcode slicing techniques implemented as a runtime binding rule. Runtimebinding rules may operate to stitch together disparate pieces of codeallowing runtime simulation to properly continue throughout theapplication path.

Code References:

FirstFilter.java—first J2EE filter to be invoked in filter chain (FIG.7A)

SecondFilter.java—second J2EE filter to be invoked in filter chain (FIG.7B)

To illustrate the value of runtime binding rules to ensure runtimesimulation is as accurate as possible, this example uses the concept of“Filters” in the Java Enterprise Edition (J2EE) platform. Filtersimplement an “interceptor pattern” in that they allow the developer tocapture cross-cutting concerns in a centralized location and apply thoseconcerns throughout the application. The J2EE server consumes theweb.xml deployment descriptor which determines the ordering of filtersin their chain of execution. For the sake of brevity, it is assumed thatFirstFilter.java (FIG. 7A) is configured to execute first andSecondFilter.java (FIG. 7B) is configured to execute second. The methodinvocation in FirstFilter.java that instructs the J2EE server to invokewhatever happens to be the next filter in the chain (SecondFilter.javain this scenario) is chain.doFilter (request, response) (FIG. 7A)(line8). At this point the J2EE server begins executing the doFilter methodof the SecondFilter class (FIG. 7B)(line 7). A problem presented to theSCA engine is that there is no concrete method declaration associatedwith the chain.doFilter (FIG. 7A)(line 8) method invocation in theFirstFilter.java class. As a result, it does not know where to jump andthus results in significantly minimal call graph traversal.

To solve this problem, the engine consumes external knowledge basescaptured in the form of “rule packs”. Rule packs describe commonapplication behaviors to the engine allowing it to produce more fruitfulresults. For example, all application entry points may be captured in arule pack for engine consumption. Runtime binding rules are another formof rule in these rule pack. These rules allow the rule pack writer tosignify that the engine should forcefully jump to a particular locationin code if certain criteria are met. In this example, that criterion isthe chain.doFilter method invocation in FirstFilter.java (FIG. 7A)(line8). The runtime binding rule says “whenever the doFilter method isinvoked on the chain object in FirstFilter.java, the engine shouldimmediately jump to the doFilter method declaration inSecondFilter.java”.

The following pseudo code illustrates the application of the runtimebinding rule in this scenario:

var filters = collect_all_filters( ) for(filter1 : filters): for(filter2: filters): if (filter1.is_mapped_to(filter2)): var do_filter_calls =find_do_filter_calls(filter1): var do_filter_decl =find_do_filter_decl(filter2): for(do_filter_call : do_filter_calls):runtime_bind(do_filter_call, do_filter_decl)

When the engine begins traversing the doFilter method body ofFirstFilter, it will come across the chain.doFilter method invocationand notice it is marked with a runtime binding rule. When this is found,the engine forgoes its usual “check inheritance stack” logic previouslydescribed and instead will simply jump to the method declarationidentified in the corresponding method declaration rule. In this case,the engine will not look for a method that implements doFilter(request,response, chain) and instead will just jump to the doFilter methoddeclaration in SecondFilter (line 7).

FIG. 8 is a diagram of a computer apparatus 800 according to someembodiments. The various elements in the previously describedembodiments (e.g., computer system 100) may use any suitable number ofsubsystems in the computer apparatus to facilitate the functionsdescribed herein. Examples of such subsystems or components are shown inFIG. 8. The subsystems shown in FIG. 8 are interconnected via a systembus 810. Additional subsystems such as a printer 820, keyboard 830,fixed disk 840 (or other memory comprising tangible, non-transitorycomputer-readable media), monitor 850, which is coupled to displayadapter 855, and others are shown. Peripherals and input/output (I/O)devices (not shown), which couple to I/O controller 860, can beconnected to the computer system by any number of means known in theart, such as serial port 865. For example, serial port 865 or externalinterface 870 can be used to connect the computer apparatus to a widearea network such as the Internet, a mouse input device, or a scanner.The interconnection via system bus 810 allows the central processor 880to communicate with each subsystem and to control the execution ofinstructions from system memory 890 or the fixed disk 840, as well asthe exchange of information between subsystems. The system memory 890and/or the fixed disk 840 may embody a tangible, non-transitorycomputer-readable medium.

The software components or functions described in this application maybe implemented as software code to be executed by one or more processorsusing any suitable computer language such as, for example, Java, C++ orPerl using, for example, conventional or object-oriented techniques. Thesoftware code may be stored as a series of instructions, or commands ona computer-readable medium, such as a random access memory (RAM), aread-only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard-drive or afloppy disk, or an optical medium such as a CD-ROM. Any suchcomputer-readable medium may also reside on or within a singlecomputational apparatus, and may be present on or within differentcomputational apparatuses within a system or network.

The present invention can be implemented in the form of control logic insoftware or hardware or a combination of both. The control logic may bestored in an information storage medium as a plurality of instructionsadapted to direct an information processing device to perform a set ofsteps disclosed in embodiments of the present invention. Based on thedisclosure and teachings provided herein, a person of ordinary skill inthe art will appreciate other ways and/or methods to implement thepresent invention.

The use of the terms “a” and “an” and “the” and similar referents in thecontext of describing embodiments (especially in the context of thefollowing claims) are to be construed to cover both the singular and theplural, unless otherwise indicated herein or clearly contradicted bycontext. The terms “comprising,” “having,” “including,” and “containing”are to be construed as open-ended terms (i.e., meaning “including, butnot limited to,”) unless otherwise noted. The term “connected” is to beconstrued as partly or wholly contained within, attached to, or joinedtogether, even if there is something intervening. Recitation of rangesof values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method ofreferring individually to each separate value falling within the range,unless otherwise indicated herein, and each separate value isincorporated into the specification as if it were individually recitedherein. All methods described herein can be performed in any suitableorder unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearlycontradicted by context. The use of any and all examples, or exemplarylanguage (e.g., “such as”) provided herein, is intended merely to betterilluminate embodiments and does not pose a limitation on the scopeunless otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should beconstrued as indicating any non-claimed element as essential to thepractice of at least one embodiment.

Preferred embodiments are described herein, including the best modeknown to the inventors. Variations of those preferred embodiments maybecome apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art upon reading theforegoing description. The inventors expect skilled artisans to employsuch variations as appropriate, and the inventors intend for embodimentsto be constructed otherwise than as specifically described herein.Accordingly, suitable embodiments include all modifications andequivalents of the subject matter recited in the claims appended heretoas permitted by applicable law. Moreover, any combination of theabove-described elements in all possible variations thereof iscontemplated as being incorporated into some suitable embodiment unlessotherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context.The scope of the invention should, therefore, be determined not withreference to the above description, but instead should be determinedwith reference to the pending claims along with their full scope orequivalents.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of traversing a representation of anapplication source code, the method comprising: identifying, using atleast one processor, a plurality of concrete implementations of a methodinvocation of the representation of the application source code;selecting, based at least in part on a history of a traverse of therepresentation of the application source code, a set of concreteimplementations from the plurality of concrete implementations of themethod invocation, wherein each concrete implementation of the set ofconcrete implementations is associated with a location within therepresentation of the application source code; traversing, one or moreconcrete implementations of the set of concrete implementations, where aconcrete implementation of the one or more concrete implementations isvisited before the method invocation when an associated location of theconcrete implementation is before the method innovation and the concreteimplementation is visited after the method invocation when theassociated location is after the method innovation; storing metadata,wherein the metadata comprises one or more class names associated withthe one or more traversed concrete implementations; identifying whetherany of the one or more class names are an instances of at least oneclass which the concrete implementations are a part of; searching theone or more identified classes for the concrete implementations of themethod invocation; traversing the one or more identified classes wherethe concrete implementation of the method invocation is found; updatingthe history of the traverse; and providing a set of identifiedvulnerabilities, the set of identified vulnerabilities based at least inpart on the updated history of the traverse.
 2. The method of claim 1,further comprising: selecting one of a plurality of entry points to therepresentation of the application source code; begin the traversing atthe selected one of the plurality of entry points.
 3. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the metadata includes a reference to one or more classdeclarations enclosing the one or more traversed concreteimplementations.
 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: inresponse to the determination that none of the one or more class namesare an instance of at least one class which the concrete implementationsare part of, all concrete implementations are traversed.
 5. The methodof claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the methodinvocation or its corresponding concrete implementation has anassociated runtime binding rule; and when it is determined that themethod invocation or its corresponding concrete implementation has anassociated runtime binding rule, jumping to a method declarationspecified by the runtime binding rule.
 6. The method of claim 1, whereineach concrete implementation of the set of concrete implementationsbeing traversed is selected from one or more of the plurality ofconcrete implementations based at least in part on a capability for theselected concrete implementation to occur if the application wasrunning.
 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting, in anorder specified by the representation of the application source code,one or more locations associated with the one or more concreteimplementations within the representation of the application sourcecode; and applying one or more runtime binding rules associated witheach selected location.
 8. A system, comprising: at least one storagedevice storing a representation of an application source code; at leastone processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which whenexecuted by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processorto: identify a plurality of concrete implementations of a methodinvocation of the representation of the application source code; select,based at least in part on a history of a traverse of the representationof the application source code, a set of concrete implementations fromthe plurality of concrete implementations of the method invocation,wherein each concrete implementation of the set of concreteimplementations is associated with a location within the representationof the application source code; traverse, one or more concreteimplementations of the set of concrete implementations, where a concreteimplementation of the one or more concrete implementations is visitedbefore the method invocation when an associated location of the concreteimplementation is before the method innovation and the concreteimplementation is visited after the method invocation when theassociated location is after the method innovation; store metadata,wherein the metadata comprises one or more class names associated withthe one or more traversed concrete implementations; identify whether anyof the one or more class names are an instances of at least one classwhich the concrete implementations are a part of; search the one or moreidentified classes for the concrete implementations of the methodinvocation; traverse the one or more identified classes where theconcrete implementation of the method invocation is found; update thehistory of the traverse; and provide a set of identifiedvulnerabilities, the set of identified vulnerabilities based at least inpart on the updated history of the traverse.
 9. The system of claim 8,further comprising instructions which when executed by the at least oneprocessor, causes the processor to: select one of a plurality of entrypoints to the representations of the application source code; and beginthe traverse at the selected one of the plurality of entry points. 10.The system of claim 8, wherein the metadata includes a reference to oneor more class declarations enclosing the one or more concreteimplementations.
 11. The system of claim 8, further comprisinginstructions which when executed by the at least one processor, causesthe processor to: determine whether the method invocation or itscorresponding concrete implementation is marked with a runtime bindingrule; and in response to the determination that the method invocation orits corresponding concrete implementation is marked with a runtimebinding rule, jumping to a method declaration identified by the runtimebinding rule.
 12. The system of claim 8, further comprising instructionswhich when executed by the at least one processor, causes the processorto: select, in an order specified by the representation of theapplication source code, one or more locations associated with the oneor more concrete implementations within the representation of theapplication source code; and apply one or more of the plurality ofruntime binding rules associated with each selected location.
 13. Anon-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructionsstored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, causes theat least on processor to: identify a plurality of concreteimplementations of a method invocation of a representation of anapplication source code; select, based at least in part on a history ofa traverse of the representation of the application source code, a setof concrete implementations from the plurality of concreteimplementations of the method invocation, wherein each concreteimplementation of the set of concrete implementations is associated witha location within the representation of the application source code;traverse, one or more concrete implementations of the set of concreteimplementations, where a concrete implementation of the one or moreconcrete implementations is visited before the method invocation when anassociated location of the concrete implementation is before the methodinnovation and the concrete implementation is visited after the methodinvocation when the associated location is after the method innovation;store metadata, wherein the metadata comprises one or more class namesassociated with the one or more traversed concrete implementations;identify whether any of the one or more class names are an instances ofat least one class which the concrete implementations are a part of;search the one or more identified classes for the concreteimplementations of the method invocation; traverse the one or moreidentified classes where the concrete implementation of the methodinvocation is found; update the history of the traverse; and provide aset of identified vulnerabilities, the set of identified vulnerabilitiesbased at least in part on the updated history of the traverse.
 14. Thenon-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, furthercomprising instructions which when executed by the at least oneprocessor, causes the processor to: select one of a plurality of entrypoints to the representation of the application source code; and beginat the selected one of the plurality of entry points.
 15. Thenon-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein themetadata includes a reference to one or more class declarationsenclosing the one or more concrete implementations.
 16. Thenon-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, furthercomprising instructions which when executed by the at least oneprocessor, causes the processor to: select, in an order specified by therepresentation of the application source code, one or more locationsassociated with the one or more concrete implementations within therepresentation of the application source code; and apply one or more ofthe plurality of runtime binding rules associated with each selectedlocation.